F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[vengence]

The F-35 might be delayed but it is deffintly not doomed! It might not be as good as the F-22 but it has better avonics and rader.
The F-35 prices WILL be going up but soon or later who fall signifcitnly just below $90 million (my guess) and because there will be over 3000 sales this will create major upgrades which will deffintly boost the performance of the F-35.

I know i am of topic but do you think other countries buy it or produce it when they are not a member?

 

[SpudmanWP]

There has not been any rise in cost related to the F-35 itself. What has gone up (or is expected to) is the cost of development related to the delay.

This is a seperate line item in the budget and does not affect the purchase price of the F-35.

 

[Todjaeger]

I know i am of topic but do you think other countries buy it or produce it when they are not a member?

Short of some significant contract re-negotiations, any countries which are interested purchasing the F-35 will need to buy them. AFAIK at this point all the fleet-wide subcomponent contracts have been let out. A country (not part of the JSF consortium) that choses to order the F-35 might be able to specify in the contract some local content, but that would be of fairly minor importance as far as components go, and also there would not be all that much content available to be constructed locally.

It is possible a country might wish to engage in local assembly. I am not certain if that is as locked down with contracts as the components. If it is, then any F-35s ordered would either be assembled in the US or Italy. Nost likely the US since that is where ~90% of F-35s are being assembled IIRC.

-Cheers

 

[Palnatoke]

Watch X-Files re-runs much?
.

No, but my work is related to public financing. Let me just say that my confidence in honest reporting by any goverment agency is permantly shaken.

 

[Palnatoke]

Also, that page from ELP is only the USAF F-35s, not the USN & USMC. The total planned F-35 purchase for the USA is 2443. Add the partner nations (not Japan or Israel) and the total is at 3173.

But 3173 air planes are, as far as I am informed, a fair distance from the original envisioned number of airplanes. That alone should raise some alarm bells vis a vis the promised affordability. We can then discuss whether 3173 planes will be bulded at all - I have doubts.

 

[Grand Danois]

No, but my work is related to public financing. Let me just say that my confidence in honest reporting by any goverment agency is permantly shaken.

Hehe! Somehow I sensed that.

Let's assume you're right - then the whole scam should fall apart as soon as production ramps up. Recurring production costs would far outstrip non-recurring cost. If so, when would this kick in?

 

[Palnatoke]

Hehe! Somehow I sensed that.

Let's assume you're right - then the whole scam should fall apart as soon as production ramps up. Recurring production costs would far outstrip non-recurring cost. If so, when would this kick in?

I don't say it a scam, I am not saying that suddenly costs will explode. I am saying that it's hard to derive anything from the budget, besides uncertainty. I am saying that there are a number of factors, which kept together with the original "business cases" raises, in my mind, serious doubt about the advertised affordability.

My own quess, is that the australien goverment has been offered F35s to the unit price, that LM thinks the unit price will be for the total program. The real cost is probably going to be somewhat higher, but US tax-payers will foot that bill. Though that's me speculating.

 

[Sea Toby]

But 3173 air planes are, as far as I am informed, a fair distance from the original envisioned number of airplanes. That alone should raise some alarm bells vis a vis the promised affordability. We can then discuss whether 3173 planes will be bulded at all - I have doubts.

You never really know what the final number will be built. In some cases like the F-22 program, the program is killed. On the other hand like the F/A-18 program more aircraft are built than originally planned. The F-16 program should have ended ten years ago and its still being produced. The C-17 program was originally for 120 aircraft, they have orders for over 200 aircraft, including more this year.

While everything is being done to not build a dog, POS, if the aircraft is a dog the program will die. On the other hand if this aircraft isn't a dog, most likely more will be built. The what ifs for not building as many as planned works in the opposite direction too, what ifs more are built than planned? There is no sound answer to the question what if?

For example, you will have problems answering what if the US cut its defense budget in half? You will also have problems answering what if the US doubled its defense budget?

 

[B3LA]

President Obama has pledged to terminate weapons with bloated price tags
and he vowed in March to reform the Pentagon's procurement practices and
crack down on programs that run over budget.

The Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act that became US law in May
2009 requires the Pentagon to presume termination of any program that
breaches certain cost targets.

LM are now at a $16 billion budget overrun and at a two years delay.

So what is the "certain cost" in the F-35 case?

The only thing that will happen, should that "certain cost" be reached, is that
the project will have to be restructured and recertified, so no actual risk of a
F-35 termination, but it would be fun to know!

 

[gf0012-aust]

President Obama has pledged to terminate weapons with bloated price tags and he vowed in March to reform the Pentagon's procurement practices and
crack down on programs that run over budget.

The Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act that became US law in May
2009 requires the Pentagon to presume termination of any program that
breaches certain cost targets.

LM are now at a $16 billion budget overrun and at a two years delay.

So what is the "certain cost" in the F-35 case?

The only thing that will happen, should that "certain cost" be reached, is that
the project will have to be restructured and recertified, so no actual risk of a
F-35 termination, but it would be fun to know!

aah, but thats where the naysayers are getting it wrong. Ashton Carter has made it pretty clear to Australia that the success of JSF is a number one priority for the US Govt, and that they are determined to keep it on track and alive as it involves much more than just a repalcement manned solution for their aging multiple fixed wing fleet.

In fact Carter is coming out to Aust in the next month or so to discuss management solutions with the major partners.

JSF is here to stay - despite what some of the more hysterical commentators in the media are implying.

Carter is charged with getting US procurement fixed, so Obama is taking his lead from Carter.

You need to understand the mechanics of whats happening when looking at articles (which you have hinted at yourself in your closing comments) - esp ones that are not crafted properly and where the author has taken partial information and used it to model their view of the world.

The end prices has always been stated - it depends on year and volume. If the partners all know their prices I'm at a loss to understand why some in the press don't get it.

 

[the road runner]

Post deleted

 

[fltworthy]

It looks like the Obama Administration is signing up to slash F-35 production, and eliminate two carrier battle groups:
DoD Buzz | QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Leave your political beliefs out of discussions on this forum.

 

[AegisFC]

It looks like the Obama Administration is signing up to slash F-35 production, and eliminate two carrier battle groups:
DoD Buzz | QDR Likely Kills Two Carriers, EFV

Nothing but unsubstantiated rumor.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Nothing but unsubstantiated rumor.

I really really hope your right on this one. Because I've seen countless rumors and I hope this is just one of them.

After cutting the F-22 production at just 187 jets, they can't be serious about cutting the F-35, let alone 2 aircraft carriers!!! Congress wont allow that to happen I hope.

 

[Sea Toby]

Nothing with the US budget is ever safe, nor are any rumors true until both houses of Congress and the POTUS agree. The "what ifs?" questions and suggestions can never really be countered. Oh yes, the democratic liberals want to cut the defense budget to spend more on social programs, always have. Fortunately, moderates in both parties and both houses of Congress have another agenda. Nothing new here.....

 

[zeven]

Nothing with the US budget is ever safe, nor are any rumors true until both houses of Congress and the POTUS agree. The "what ifs?" questions and suggestions can never really be countered. Oh yes, the democratic liberals want to cut the defense budget to spend more on social programs, always have. Fortunately, moderates in both parties and both houses of Congress have another agenda. Nothing new here.....

whats wrong with that? to spend taxpayers money on social security is far better than spending it on Arms! i belive any HUMAN would agree!

 

[justone]

Nothing with the US budget is ever safe, nor are any rumors true until both houses of Congress and the POTUS agree. The "what ifs?" questions and suggestions can never really be countered. Oh yes, the democratic liberals want to cut the defense budget to spend more on social programs, always have. Fortunately, moderates in both parties and both houses of Congress have another agenda. Nothing new here.....

That would be interested to see the outcome of this debate. The F-35 is not doom. In the business world thing happen like this all the time. I hate it to you have sit down and work on it. There going be hidden cost on the fighter the heavy training and to get downfalls on jet corrected. If something not working correctly you have adjust the price to fix the problem. I really thankful that they go through this intense proceed to get it right and went it done "it will be tough jet".

 

[Gremlin29]

whats wrong with that? to spend taxpayers money on social security is far better than spending it on Arms! i belive any HUMAN would agree!

Why do you believe that?

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Oh yes, the democratic liberals want to cut the defense budget to spend more on social programs, always have. Fortunately, moderates in both parties and both houses of Congress have another agenda. Nothing new here.....

Yeah most are moderates so the defense industry is for the most part safe.

whats wrong with that? to spend taxpayers money on social security is far better than spending it on Arms! i belive any HUMAN would agree!

*GASP* any human? Wow kid I don't think most people are ok with cutting our defenses to spend on programs that are next to useless.

But we need to keep the politics to a minimum.